Lifestyle

Millennials, long presumed to have less interest in the nonstop consumption of goods that underpins the American economy, might not be that different after all, a new study from the Federal Reserve says. Bloomberg reports:

“Their spending habits are a lot like the generations that came before them, they just have less money at this point in their lives, the Fed study found. The group born between 1981 and 1997 has fallen behind because many of them came of age during the financial crisis. ‘We find little evidence that millennial households have tastes and preference for consumption that are lower than those of earlier generations, once the effects of age, income, and a wide range of demographic characteristics are taken into account,’ wrote authors Christopher Kurz, Geng Li and Daniel J. Vine.”

“Their findings [PDF] are grounded in an analysis of spending, income, debt, net worth, and demographic factors among different generations. The conclusion that millennials aren’t all that different also holds for the researchers’ more granular examination of expenditures on cars, food, and housing. ‘It primarily is the differences in average age and then differences in average income that explain a large and important portion of the consumption wedge between millennials and other cohorts,’ they conclude. So much for the young folks favoring ‘experiences’ over tangible goods.”

More than one-quarter of U.S. renters in a survey are not confident they could cover a $400 emergency. Financial stress visits renters more than homeowners. That’s the main takeaway from a new report by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington. CNBC reports:

“Rental costs are rising much faster than renters’ salaries. Between 1960 and 2016, the median income for a renter grew by just 5 percent. During the same period, the median rent ballooned by more than 60 percent, according to The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University… Half of renters in the survey reported a material hardship in the past year, compared with one-third of homeowners. Around 18 percent of homeowners reported low emergency savings.”

Something of enormous global significance is happening almost without notice. For the first time since agriculture-based civilization began 10,000 years ago, the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into poverty. The Brookings Institution reports:

By our calculations, as of this month, just over 50 percent of the world’s population, or some 3.8 billion people, live in households with enough discretionary expenditure to be considered “middle class” or “rich.” About the same number of people are living in households that are poor or vulnerable to poverty. So September 2018 marks a global tipping point. After this, for the first time ever, the poor and vulnerable will no longer be a majority in the world. Barring some unfortunate global economic setback, this marks the start of a new era of a middle-class majority.

In most countries, there is a clear relationship between the fate of the middle class and the happiness of the population. According to the Gallup World Poll, new entrants into the middle class are noticeably happier than those stuck in poverty or in vulnerable households. Conversely, individuals in countries where the middle class is shrinking report greater degrees of personal stress. The middle class also puts pressure on governments to perform better. They look to their governments to provide affordable housing, education, and universal health care. They rely on public safety nets to help them in sickness, unemployment or old age. But they resist efforts of governments to impose taxes to pay the bills. This complicates the politics of middle-class societies, so they range from autocratic to liberal democracies. Many advanced and middle-income countries today are struggling to find a set of politics that can satisfy a broad middle-class majority. The tipping point in the world today offers opportunities for business but complications for policymakers.

Research shows sleep deprivation or excessive hours in bed increase risk of coronary artery disease or stroke. From a report:

Six to eight hours of sleep a night is most beneficial for the heart, while more or less than that could increase the risk of coronary artery disease or a stroke, researchers have suggested. The study, presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress in Munich, indicates sleep deprivation and excessive hours in bed should be avoided for optimum heart health. The study’s author, Dr Epameinondas Fountas of the Onassis cardiac surgery centre in Athens, said: “Our findings suggest that too much or too little sleep may be bad for the heart. More research is needed to clarify exactly why, but we do know that sleep influences biological processes like glucose metabolism, blood pressure, and inflammations — all of which have an impact on cardiovascular disease.” Data from more than a million adults from 11 studies was analysed as part of the research. Compared with adults who got six to eight hours of sleep a night, “short sleepers” had an 11% greater risk, while “long sleepers” had 33% increased risk over the next nine years.

New research suggests that more money really does lead to a more satisfying life. Justin Wolfers writes on New York Times:

Surveys of thousands of Swedish lottery winners have provided persuasive evidence of this truth. Lottery winners said they were substantially more satisfied with their lives than lottery losers. And those who won prizes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars reported being more satisfied than winners of mere tens of thousands. These effects are remarkably durable. They were still evident up to two decades after a big win. The findings appear in a research report, “Long-Run Effects of Lottery Wealth on Psychological Well-Being,” that has generated a lot of buzz among economists over the summer. The working paper is by Erik Lindqvist from the Stockholm School of Economics, Robert Ostling from Stockholm University and David Cesarini from New York University.

According to a study released on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, middle-aged Americans who experienced a sudden, large economic blow were more likely to die during the following years than those who didn’t. The heightened danger of death after a devastating loss, which researchers called a “wealth shock,” crossed socio-economic lines, affecting people no matter how much money they had to start. Dayton Daily News reported:

Middle-aged Americans who experienced a sudden, large economic blow were more likely to die during the following years than those who didn’t. The heightened danger of death after a devastating loss, which researchers called a “wealth shock,” crossed socio-economic lines, affecting people no matter how much money they had to start.

The analysis of nearly 9,000 people’s experiences underscores well-known connections between money and well-being, with prior studies linking lower incomes and rising income inequality with more chronic disease and shorter life expectancy.

“This is really a story about everybody,” said lead researcher Lindsay Pool of Northwestern University’s medical school. Stress, delays in health care, substance abuse and suicides may contribute, she said. “Policymakers should pay attention.”

Overall, wealth shock was tied with a 50 percent greater risk of dying, although the study couldn’t prove a cause-and-effect connection. The study was published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Want to be happy without spending a boatload of money? Think like an old person. The New York Times reported:

Older people report higher levels of contentment or well-being than teenagers and young adults. The six elders put faces on this statistic. If they were not always gleeful, they were resilient and not paralyzed by the challenges that came their way. All had known loss and survived. None went to a job he did not like, coveted stuff she could not afford, brooded over a slight on the subway or lost sleep over events in the distant future. They set realistic goals. Only one said he was afraid to die.

Gerontologists call this the paradox of old age: that as people’s minds and bodies decline, instead of feeling worse about their lives, they feel better. In memory tests, they recall positive images better than negative; under functional magnetic resonance imaging, their brains respond more mildly to stressful images than the brains of younger people.

John Sorensen, who liked to talk, brought cheer to every conversation, even those about wanting to die. Helen Moses and Ping Wong knew exactly what they wanted: for Ms. Moses, it was her daughter and Mr. Zeimer; for Ms. Wong, it was mah-jongg and the camaraderie it entailed, even if the other players spoke a different dialect or followed the rules of a different home region. Mr. Jones, Ms. Willig and Mr. Mekas all spent their energy on the things they could still do that brought them satisfaction, not on what they had lost to age.

Pope Francis on Saturday advised against making the pursuit of money, a career or success the basis for one’s whole life, urging in his Epiphany remarks to also resist “inclinations toward arrogance, the thirst for power and for riches.” Frances D’Emilio writes for the Associate Press:

During a homily at Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, Francis said people “often make do” with having “health, a little money and a bit of entertainment.” He urged people to help the poor and others in need of assistance, giving freely without expecting anything in return.

Many Christians observe Epiphany to recall the three wise men who followed a star to find the baby Jesus. Francis suggested asking “what star we have chosen to follow in our lives?”

“Some stars may be bright, but do not point the way. So it is with success, money, career, honors and pleasures, when these become our lives,” the pope said, adding that path won’t ensure peace and joy.

Warren Buffett, the CEO and chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, said years of growth lie ahead and he’s confident that America can both deliver riches to many and a decent life to all. Buffett wrote on Time:

I have good news. First, most American children are going to live far better than their parents did. Second, large gains in the living standards of Americans will continue for many generations to come.

Some years back, people generally agreed with my optimism. Today, however, pollsters find that most Americans are pessimistic about their children’s future. Politicians, business leaders and the press constantly tell us that our economic machine is sputtering. Their evidence: GDP growth of only 2% or so in recent years.

Before we shed tears over that figure, let’s do a little math, recognizing that GDP per capita is what counts. If, for example, the U.S. population were to grow 3% annually while GDP grew 2%, prospects would indeed be bleak for our children.

But that’s not the case. We can be confident that births minus deaths will add no more than 0.5% yearly to America’s population. Immigration is more difficult to predict. I believe 1 million people annually is a reasonable estimate, an influx that will add 0.3% annually to population growth.

In total, therefore, you can expect America’s population to increase about 0.8% a year. Under that assumption, gains of 2% in real GDP–that is, without nominal gains produced by inflation–will annually deliver 1.2% growth in per capita GDP.

This pace no doubt sounds paltry. But over time, it works wonders. In 25 years–a single generation–1.2% annual growth boosts our current $59,000 of GDP per capita to $79,000. This $20,000 increase guarantees a far better life for our children.

Dave Evans, co-founder of the popular Life Design Lab at Stanford University, discusses the key concepts to guide you in your quest to figure out what you want to do in life. Evans underscores the importance of accepting who you are and connecting that to what you believe and do, while attacking dysfunctional notions like the one that dares you to be the “best version of yourself.”

Transcript

So, we’re here to talk about this designing, how design thinking might apply to your life. That’s not starting a company, but managing your life if you’re gonna start a company is a pretty challenging thing. So, what this thing is all about, first of all, Bill Burnett, my partner who is not here, he’s actually doing something similar in another building on the campus right now, so 10 years ago, Bill and I got together, had lunch, started talking about this thing, and said, “Hey let’s do this,” in the summer of 2007, and that turned into what is now called the Life Design Lab. And at the Life Design Lab, our mission is very simple. It is to apply the innovation principles of design thinking to the wicked problem of designing your life at or after university. That’s a carefully crafted elevator pitch. All the colored words, if you click on ’em, you get a white paper. Most people go, “What does that really mean? “That sounds great. “That sounds like a VC pitch.” No, we teach the classes that help you figure out what you wanna be when you grow up. And then everybody goes, “Oh, can I take the class?” So that’s a better question. [Read more…]